Category Archives: game design

(This is the 6th and final part in a series on the multiplayer changes announced for Legacy of the Void at BlizzCon)

Over the last 5 posts, I have covered a lot of topics around Legacy of the Void (LotV), and they ranged from excited to skeptical and analytical to fanboy-ish. What I want to end on, however, is just a simple point: let’s stay supportive and positive.

There was a lot of excitement right around the announcement, and we need to keep that energy going as much as we can through release. As we get more details about the game, we are going to digger deeper into the changes, and any change will have both pros and cons. Given how experimental things are at this point, however, I don’t want us to get overwhelmingly focused on the negative.

As Blizzard changes things, not everything will work, but it’s important that they have the mandate from the community to try things. We do joke about things like “Daed Gaem” and complain about balance, but there is some underlying feeling that things can improve, and LotV is Blizzard’s chance to fix that. If we back away when we get more details about how much damage a certain unit does or how weak a certain race looks, then the natural reaction is to drift back to the norm, which is the game that we currently have.

Furthermore, it is natural that the changes will drift towards being less radical over time. Blizzard believes strongly in slow, progressive changes towards a stable game, and the game is only get to get more “normal” over time. Ideas rarely get crazier than initial creation and brainstorming, and I would be surprised for something really big to happen now that Blizzard has already announced a feature set.

Given this natural progression, I think we should be pushing to keep changes to see how they evolve and not allow ourselves to revert back to old thinking, whether that’s HotS or Brood War. If we think this game needs a shake-up, we should be behind everything Blizzard does, and hopefully they will hit on the right things. Stay excited. Big things are ahead.

(This is part 5 in a series on the multiplayer changes announced for Legacy of the Void at BlizzCon)

These days, I play more team games than 1v1. Since my friends and I have gotten weekly StarCraft going, it has been my most reliable way of staying in the game. We mostly play 3v3s and 4v4s, and after over a year of it, I have to admit: it isn’t great. There are a few problems and why Legacy of the Void (LotV) isn’t helping.

Current problems with team games

First, the skill gap is rough. Although the total hours of StarCraft played over the past 1 1/2 years is very close across all of the players, the skill gap hasn’t narrowed much. Unfortunately, StarCraft does require deliberate practice and learning, and for most people, it isn’t worth it. As much as we try to make it friendly, it’s tough for the less talented players to stick through it.

Second, harassment and prepared cheese can destroy less talented players. We have seen a lot of strange builds, but the unfortunate part is that they still work. Mass Reapers are devastating because even if 2 of the 4 people on the team can prepare for it, there’s someone who is vulnerable, and while we’re trying to protect them to make sure that they can play a full game and not instantly lose all of their workers, our opponents can macro up to crush us in the mid-game. Banshees, Oracles, and any other harassment is just as bad. Unfortunately LotV makes all of this worse as Blizzard is deliberately strengthening harassment and aggression, which barely gives us an opportunity to develop.

Third, big maps rarely have enough bases. It’s lucky to find a map that gives everyone a chance to get up to 3 bases, which can be critical because a lot of games end up with critical players mining out. This is unfortunate because more talented players tend to need to carry the team, and short of asking for donations (which is an attempt to balance, but can be crippling for less experienced players), it is rough to sustain a long, interesting game. Again, LotV makes this even worse by decreasing the resources at each base. Given the apparent limitations on the size of the map, it means that big games just can’t go that long.

Fourth, I’m not sure how Blizzard has and tries to balance for big team games. This is not to say that I think the game is unbalanced, but the permutations of strategies means that there’s more to prepare for, and again, it’s hard to make less talented players learn the hard way, which still hasn’t worked (for us) in over a year of playing.

The path forward

And despite all of that, I think StarCraft is a fabulous game, and we still have managed to sustain our group for this long. Although Blizzard hasn’t explicitly thrown team games under the bus, I think they have decided to de-prioritize it. The issue is that StarCraft doesn’t naturally extend to more than 2 players. Although the gameplay affords it and the technology exists, it isn’t necessarily desirable and suffers when the game is designed for 1v1.

So instead of trying to fix it, they’re introducing new modes for bigger games, and I’m very excited for them because they really address the needs of casual players.

Archon Mode

Archon mode allows 2 players to play as 1 by controlling shared units. Although I never made the connection, this is what I have wanted in StarCraft 2 for a very long time: team melee.

Team melee was a mode back in Brood War that allowed several players to control the same units. It was a blast, and one of the greatest games of StarCraft I played have every played was a 2v2v1 team melee game. There are a few reasons why I think it works better than team games.

First, it’s balanced and allows us to use units and play like Blizzard intended. They design and balance for 1v1, and if we can get back to that point with multiple players, it will work.

Second, it’s a great way to teach and carry less talented players. StarCraft is an overwhelming game, and typical mistakes for less talented players is not reacting fast enough or knowing what the response is. Archon mode allows a more talented player to drive when things get dicey, and they can maintain other tasks (e.g. macro) so that the less talented player can improve.

Third, it encourages communication. One of the best parts of team games is talking to friends, but unfortunately, the discussion tends to be more talented players yelling at less talented players to do things and complain about them not doing something. That should be out of the door as archon mode is naturally more cooperative. They can strategize together without being mired by mechanical issues.

The details here are sketchy, but it sounds good to me. Allied commander sounds like Halo’s firefight, or Left 2 Die, where players can play cooperatively against some objective. I think the interest in a co-op campaign (google for it) indicates how much people want this. Although not all of my friends have gotten into multiplayer, everyone seems to enjoy the campaign, and being able to share that experience sounds really nice.

Again, it depends on the details, but I’m glad to see Blizzard trying this out and putting it as a major mode. Even if they don’t get it right the first time, it’s a big opportunity for development in the future.

Conclusion

Laddering 1v1 is really scary. Even laddering 2v2 is scary. StarCraft is just a really hard game, and so far, StarCraft hasn’t been well-designed for bigger games that build a social and more casual experience for engaging the larger community. Rather than trying to fix the existing modes, I think Blizzard is making a great move by developing new modes for this purpose. I hope it works to keep people in the game!

(This is part 4 in a series on the multiplayer changes announced for Legacy of the Void at BlizzCon)

Last time, I wrote about some concerns that I have about how the community might react to the shift towards micro and aggression. Overall, the piece came off quite cynical, but I think that there’s a separate and less polemic discussion to be had about how increased micro could impact the frequency of comebacks.

Roughly, micro makes comebacks possible. In StarCraft, we typically compare how players are doing by macro metrics: number of mining bases, current supply counts, banked resources, army composition, and so forth. We will fuzz our measurements by map control and information, but macro determines who has the advantage. Were one to simply throw armies against each other, the player with better macro wins.

However, StarCraft is much more dynamic than just economy, and micro can overcome a disadvantage by making certain units worth more than their face value with good control. Good micro can overcome being strictly outnumbered or outgunned. As a consequence, if micro is more important, this enables more comebacks as micro can make up for a lack of macro.

Dota 2 recently went through a big discussion after their last major patch changed the “comeback mechanic” that increased a team’s reward for getting kills while behind. With just some tweaking of some multipliers, the game (according to the community) quickly became a total crapshoot as getting ahead didn’t matter because the trailing team could always come back.

Of course, micro in StarCraft isn’t a comeback mechanic because it doesn’t strictly give an advantage to the losing player. Micro is, however, an aspect that adds variance to the game and adds a factor closer to 50-50 to a game than straight-up macro allows for.

It’s a strict tradeoff: how important/likely are comebacks compared to snowballing? In other words, as you get more ahead, how likely should you be to win? Presumably, this value should always be somewhere between 50% (being “ahead” doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect your chance of winning) and 100% (being aheads guarantees a wing) depending on how far “ahead” (by some arbitrary metric) you are. To emphasize this point, I’m going to pull a graph out of my archives:

What we see here is that being ahead by 15 supply corresponds to roughly a 75% – 80% win rate in all matchups. Of course, there tends to be a positive relationship between supply advantage and win rate. The snowball versus comeback debate roughly comes down to how quickly that line should go from 50% to 100%. If the graph is relatively shallow, comebacks are more likely. If the graph is very steep, the player at an advantage tends to snowball?

So do you think that StarCraft currently has the right balance of snowballing and comebacks? It really is a matter of preference that has no right or wrong. Snowballing is comforting, but can be boring and lead to GGs. Comebacks can be exciting, but also chaotic and make a lot of the game meaningless. “All things in moderation,” of course, but there’s so much variety between those extremes that we can consider. It’s just a matter of what makes for a fun experience for you to play and watch.

In my opinion, I think the game could use a bit more variety and more frequent comebacks, but it’s pretty close right now. I do like the stability of the game in knowing what to do to improve, but it can also be frustrating to know that, because you lost an expansion early, the game is over, and it’s just a slow death at this point. Given that, I think that commentators tend to overstate the certainty of outcomes based on early events, and I do think the game is more dynamic than we think. And of course, comebacks are only one part of the dynamic that does or doesn’t make the game fun. It just so happens that that it’s the one we perhaps remember the best.

Where do you think StarCraft currently is on the snowball/comeback scale?

StarCraft is currently well-balanced between snowballing and comebacks (52%, 11 Votes)

StarCraft is somewhat predictable and could use a few more comebacks (33%, 7 Votes)

StarCraft is so predictable and needs more comebacks (14%, 3 Votes)

StarCraft is somewhat chaotic and could use a little more snowballing (0%, 0 Votes)

StarCraft is so chaotic and needs a lot more snowballing (0%, 0 Votes)

(This is part 3 in a series on the multiplayer changes announced for Legacy of the Void at BlizzCon)

(Disclaimer: this post is kind of a wet towel, and I swear I’m really excited about LotV and believe we should stay positive as a community to be supportive of Blizzard’s willingness to try things out)

StarCraft 2 has always had interesting tension between micro and macro*. On the one hand, everyone loves micro: most highlight videos and “aww snap” moments come from expert control of specific units. On the other hand, most players will tell you that the best way to get better is to improve your macro and focus on probes and pylons, probes and pylons, probes and pylons. Of course, both are necessary skills, but it is strange when the aspects of a game that attract players are different from the most important aspects of it.

StarCraft has always leaned towards macro: that’s one of the big ways that WarCraft distinguished itself from StarCraft on a gameplay level. Despite that, Blizzard has targeted a few ways to increase the importance of micro to make the game more dynamic in Legacy of the Void (LotV). Those goals are listed here, so I won’t repeat them verbatim. I do, however, have a big question: does the community really want more aggression and micro?

Conceptually, I think the changes are nice. I love mechanics that require both players to do something. To borrow from another game, one of my favorite Magic: the Gathering cards is Blackmail. It is, in fact, not particularly potent discard, but both sides have to think from the others’ perspective, and both have a choice, where most discard either allows only 1 of the 2 players to make the choice. It’s more interactive than just being subject to whatever is coming at you. Having counter-micro opportunities against Ravagers or Disruptors is cool.

And from an esports and professional level, I think it sounds good, too, but it may not really be desirable. Micro makes for good highlights. With Heart of the Swarm (HotS), we have seen some of the most egregiously drawn out games as players prove that they’re willing to wait it out if it means they can win. Micro can break some of the long stalemates that we hate watching because things get boring because no one is encouraged to be aggressive, but will players go for it?

For the larger player base that only plays casually, however, I think we have also seen a tendency towards wanting more stable games. We used to have maps like Tal’Darim Altar, which had big chokes that were hard to defend (specifically PvP), and players hated it. Very small maps also encourage early game aggression, and we moved towards bigger maps. Early ZvZ strategies were endless streams of Zerglings and Banelings running across the map, and that was always considered too much of a “coin-flip”.

The general issue with a bias towards aggression and splashy effects is that the results can be volatile, and although a Widow Mine shot killing 20 workers makes a great gif, but it probably caused a rage quit. Requiring defensive micro can be intimidating: players are already taxed on multitasking, and knowing they can constantly lose in an instant to a mismicro can make anyone paranoid.

One of their goals in the game is to “differentiate player skill better”, but I am concerned that this might not actually be attractive to most players. One cause of ladder anxiety is that rankings directly reflect a player’s ability, and it’s hard for a lot of players to want to “test” themselves while playing a game for fun. One of the hardest obstacles to overcome is dealing with Oracles killing minerals lines, 2 Reapers at the beginning of the game, or a Baneling landmine destroying an army. Once a player is frazzled, everything else falls apart. It feels awful, and we blame the other player for having no skill in using cheesy strategies.

When players win on micro and harassment, they feel smug. When players lose on micro, they feel cheated. But when players win and lose in big macro battles, it feels epic. And having played those long games, I have never been bored. Even when a game looks static, I’m still playing as fast as possible trying to keep production up and move my army around. I am very conscious of trying to add more micro to my game by mixing in more drops or keeping Zerglings on the map, but I don’t have space to micro.

To recap, I am concerned about Blizzard putting all of their marbles behind more action and micro. Although it may make for more exciting pro games, I wonder whether most players are truly capable of and willing to play in a more intensive game. But to qualify all of my skepticism above, I am extremely excited for the changes and look forward to Blizzard shaking things up. All of the thoughts above are all suppositions about a community, and I’m hopeful that LotV can keep the player base engaged!

Do you think that most players will enjoy having to micro more?

Yes (64%, 90 Votes)

No (36%, 50 Votes)

Total Voters: 140

Loading ...

*Just to clarify for the possibly uninitiated, micro and macro refer to 2 types of actions that players make during a game. Macro refers to actions to build up economy or army, such as making workers, building units, and avoid supply blocks. Micro refers to control of specific units to do things, such as killing workers with Banshees, splitting Marines, or casting spells with High Templar.

(This is part 2 in a series on the multiplayer changes announced for Legacy of the Void at BlizzCon)

Since my initial post, Blizzard put together a blog post summarizing the multiplayer changes in Legacy of the Void (LotV), and they look good. Hopefully it isn’t a surprise for anyone following the LotV news closely, though it is nice to see the numbers. Sadly, I don’t understand the game quite well enough to make anything of them directly.

I’m pretty excited about all of the new units. The Herc, Cyclone, and Ravager were all well-featured in the showmatches. The Lurker is quite the Brood War favorite, and the Disruptor seems like a bigger, badder, Protosser Baneling. The mounds of changes to existing units as well help to re-align the strengths and characteristics of existing units for more dynamic play as well.

What I am most excited for, however, is just having more stuff. I’m not too worried about the details of the changes because those will get figured out. What I would like is a sufficiently complex game that leads to a long series of choices, both within a game and in the meta-game. And the best way to encourage these pivots is diversity of choices.

As a connoisseur of build orders, there is a lot of detail and refine to be had, but if you really think about it, the different matchups aren’t so dynamic. HotS gave Terran new toys for TvZ, but most games still come down to Marine splits versus Muta-Ling-Baneling attacks, even if there are a few mine dodges. Mech still isn’t very popular in TvP. The Immortal-Sentry push still works in PvZ. Of course there are alternatives, but the game doesn’t feel like it has had many dramatic changes or revolutions in strategies.

If you believe it, there are a lot of reasons for it. Perhaps it’s the system of hard counters that StarCraft 2 has. When certain units are intended to counter other units, players don’t really have a choice because there is only 1 optimal response. Maybe it’s a lack of creativity on the part of the players. Or maybe I’m just wrong about the lack of changes in the meta-game.

Or maybe there just isn’t enough stuff in the game. Every new unit significantly increases the complexity of the game as a whole because that unit can interact with every other unit. Overall, the space of possible strategies is much larger. When confronted with some strategy in a game, there are more possible responses. And the meta-game can change more rapidly as we explore the space more.

This does make Blizzard’s job harder in keeping things balanced, but I think their incremental approach is consistent with more complexity as well. Many of their patches fit into 2 approaches. First, they will sometime buff units to give them greater prominence for players. With a more dynamic meta, this shouldn’t be necessary, but it’s not problematic to me. Second, they will nerf units that nullifies other units or otherwise exerts a large influence on the meta. These are also good changes in encouraging diversity in the game.

In that sense, Blizzard isn’t trying to control and carefully craft a set of interactions within StarCraft, nor should they. If Blizzard can design a game to anticipate all possibilities within it, then it’s probably boring because an entire community will quickly master the strategy of the game. That still of course leaves the mechanics, but StarCraft thrives because of its combination of strategic and mechanical talent required. Instead, Blizzard should (and I believe, is) provide the basic constituents of a rich ecosystem for players to explore. They can intercede when something looks or feels wrong, but how the scene develops is unknown.

So I hope Blizzard keeps as much in as possible. If StarCraft is to survive for years to come, it’s going to need to stay fresh, and the best way is to design it beyond our current comprehension. Build in good micro mechanics, but more importantly, provide a lot of them. As a community, we will learn which ones are useful in different circumstances. However, if the changes are few, we can’t use the pieces that aren’t provided. The diversity of options can make StarCraft rich and enduring.

One more thing: here’s maxilicious’s first impressions of LotV. If you’re not reading TerranCraft, you are missing out because it is definitely one of the best StarCraft analysis blogs out there. Don’t waste your time on my ramblings, and go check out his work!

(This is part 1 in a series on the multiplayer changes announced for Legacy of the Void at BlizzCon)

I am kind of obsessed with build orders. Since I’m not actually good enough at StarCraft to give real advice and analysis, it is much easier to create content by transcribing builds from professional games. That turned into a much larger endeavor in Spawning Tool, a website dedicated to build orders. And with Legacy of the Void (LotV), I can now throw away everything because players now start with 12 workers.

The worker change isn’t the splashiest part of announcement, but it does disrupt the meta-game in a far bigger way than the new units. With all of the LotV changes, there are 3 different ways that build orders will change:

Some build orders will no longer be possible

New build orders will be possible

All build orders will have to adapt to the meta-game

Eliminating build orders is straightforward. Zerg cannot 10 Pool because they start with 12 workers. Proxy 2 Rax at 12 supply is probably gone because you should have more SCVs by the time you start your proxy.

Adding build orders is also straightforward. As seen in the showmatches, both the Herc and the Ravager can play a huge role in the early game. These build orders were previously impossible because we didn’t have those units.

How the build orders interact, I think, is the most interesting effect because when other build orders are added or eliminated, all build orders must change to remain optimal. Some build orders had safety strategies built in for eliminated build orders, so these can be streamlined. Some build orders are unprepared for new strategies and have to adapt for those.

It’s hard to overstate how meta-game specific builds are. The Forge fast expand is a strange build, and yet, it (and other fast expand variants) is relatively standard because of the threat of Zergling rushes. As Zergling rushes waned, the 1 Gate expand gained popularity. Through several iterations of meta-game shifts, we can arrive in places where “outdated” builds could actually work better against current builds, but modern builds are adjusted for the current context. With a sudden change in possible builds, every build will have to change to react.

I do think most of this thought process will be more natural than it sounds. The radical change in the game will cause players to start from the ground-up rather than tweaking existing builds, and even in tweaking, the reactions should be clear. The general point, however, is that early game looks very different from before. Old school cheese is basically gone. Instead, every build order versus Zerg knows that it has to handle a 12 Pool at the fastest and work from there. The jumpstart means that a player doesn’t even have enough time to scout some of these openings before they have already arrived with a rush.

Despite all of the negativity above, I am actually really excited to get the global reset on build orders. HotS changed some openings, but not a lot. The Reaper Expand became standard, but it is still a 1 Rax Expand. Protoss had to figure out where to add the Mothership Core. Zerg didn’t really need to change much. LotV is a chance to cast away years of strategies and start over again in a fresh world with a lot to explore.

Refining builds is interesting, but I think we have the most fun being surprised and trying to work on completely new build orders. I will try to do my best to provide content and tools to help the community as much as possible, but don’t be surprised if things change very quickly.

I have to admit, my interest in StarCraft has waned over the past few months. I haven’t watched much StarCraft this year. /r/starcraft hasn’t been as interesting to me. Even my weekly games with friends has switched to StarCraft every other week with a different game in the off-weeks. I think the biggest problem is that the game has just gotten kind of stale for me since I don’t play very seriously.

But at BlizzCon this weekend, Blizzard showed off the changes to multiplayer in Legacy of the Void (LotV). And now I’m really excited again.

People much more qualified than myself have done a lot of unit analysis, so I’m going to take a different approach and offer my thoughts across a few topics. Instead of a long post here, I’m going to write a series of blog posts on different topics, each of which are roughly summarized below.

As a guy whose blog and website are dedicated to build orders, the biggest change might be starting at 12 workers instead of 6. This change should instantly void every build order that exists, which might actually be an awesome way to reset.

Blizzard is very careful to make sure that all units have a place in the game. The new units like the Ravager, Disruptor, and Cyclone look awesome, but regardless of the details, I think having more options alone will make the game much more enduring.

Although we appreciate drops, players of all level tend towards deathball strategies with large numbers of similar units attacking together. Blizzard has made a lot of changes to emphasize the abilities of individual units to make combat broader and more dynamic.

These days, I play a lot of 3v3 and 4v4 with my friends of varying skill levels. Blizzard’s changes to early game and micro could be a deathblow to this format. To compensate, they’re adding new modes that I think people will like a lot.

I think a lot of people are very excited right now about the changes. Because of Blizzard’s development policy of refine, things are never going to be more exciting than right now. Let’s figure out how we can keep that energy in the coming months.